Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2012] All ER (D) 40 (Dec)
Neutral Citation: [2012] EWHC 2737 (QB)
Court: Queen's Bench Division

Judge Griffith Williams (sitting as a judge of the High Court)

Representation William Clegg QC & David Patience (instructed by Finers Stephens Innocent) for the appellant.
  Andrew Marshall and Mark Mullen (instructed by the Serious Organised Crime Agency Legal) for the respondent.
Judgment Dates: 10 October 2012


Proceeds of crime - Unlawful conduct - Civil recovery of proceeds of unlawful conduct - Appellants being part paid for aircraft which were never delivered - Serious Organized Crime Agency seeking forfeiture of monies paid to appellant - Judge ordering forfeiture - Appellant appealing - Whether judge entitled to order forfeiture - , .

The Case

Proceeds of crime Unlawful conduct. The appellants sold aircraft to the buyer and were paid part of the monies. The aircraft were never delivered to the buyer and the Serious Organised Crime Agency sought forfeiture of the monies paid. The Queen's Bench Division held that the consideration promised by the appellants was indivisible for the purposes of of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and so would only have become executed consideration when all parts were performed. On that basis the second appellant had not obtained the recoverable property for value and so the property had not ceased to be recoverable for the purposes of s 308(1)(b) of the Act. Where consideration remained to be fulfilled, the performance of any consideration already given or performed could not amount to executed consideration for the purposes of s 314(4) of the Act.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.